Trump has his enemies dancing to his tune with 's-hole countries' comments

Do I really have to explain President Trump's strategy in reportedly using a vulgar expression to describe countries from which he believes the United States is taking far too many immigrants? I believe that many readers of this publication already get it, but it is obvious that none of President Trump's haters – Democrats, NeverTrumps formerly regarded as conservative, and those who cling to the notion that civility is to be demanded only of Republicans – has the faintest notion of the way they are being used.

For anyone who has not been watching cable news since yesterday afternoon, the background is provided by the Associated Press (language warning):

In bluntly vulgar language, President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U.S. would accept more immigrants from Haiti and "shithole countries" in Africa rather than places like Norway, as he rejected a bipartisan immigration deal, according to people briefed on the extraordinary Oval Office conversation.

Trump's contemptuous description of an entire continent startled lawmakers in the meeting and immediately revived charges that the president is racist. The White House did not deny his remark but issued a statement saying Trump supports immigration policies that welcome "those who can contribute to our society."

The context is important:

Trump's comments came as two senators presented details of a bipartisan compromise that would extend protections against deportation for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants [sic] – and also strengthen border protections, as Trump has insisted.

President Trump has now tweeted that he did not use the word "s‑‑‑‑‑‑‑" but did use "tough language."

The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made - a big setback for DACA!

I wasn't there, and I don't know. But is "s‑‑‑‑‑‑‑" used in private any worse than then-V.P. Biden privately (but near a live microphone) calling Obamacare a "big [f‑‑‑‑‑‑] deal"? Both are vulgarisms stated in private that reached the public.

Scott Adams has explained the first layer of strategy several times in the past, most recently on the "stable genius" outrage. It is still early on the West Coast, where Adams lives, so he has not yet applied his logic to the current kerfuffle. Trump has forced everyone whom he outraged to repeat the words he wants to sink in with the public. The entire chattering class is now repeating that Haiti and some African countries and El Salvador and other TPS-abusers (changing a visa explicitly labeled as "temporary" into a permanent one) are bleep-holes. The best of examples comes from Trump's sworn enemy, Jim Acosta, who repeated the vulgarism in its raw state over and over again:

Trump is thus forcing the country to have a conversation about a topic that political correctness forbids: which countries, and which cultures, we want more of in the United States. In this era, immigrants tend to maintain their old country culture because they have full access to the media from old countries (including TV channels in their native languages), because our ballots are often printed on scores of languages in big cities, and because ethnic enclaves exist where life can be led in the old country culture. Take, for instance, Somalis in Minneapolis:

Life in Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis.

But there is a second layer to Trump's strategy: he is forcing his opponents to argue for a position that is plainly untrue. No one can honestly state that Norway – the country Trump used as an example of non-bleep-hole countries (because he had just had a joint press conference with Norway's P.M. and because Norway is the richest country in the world) – is just as desirable a place to live and a culture to import here as Haiti.

Life in Haiti today.

But of course, some fanatics like Joan Walsh are willing to beclown themselves by refusing to state that Haiti is not as desirable place to live as Norway. Via Mediaite:

Lowry took this opportunity to jump in and push Walsh to answer [in] which country she'd prefer to live – Haiti or Norway. After badgering her a bit on this issue, saying she couldn’t answer the question, Walsh didn't even bother to hide her irritation.

"It's none of your business, actually," she exclaimed.

Here is the entire segment via Grabien, for your viewing pleasure.

I use the words "viewing pleasure" advisedly, because Walsh is playing Margaret Dumont to Trump's Groucho Marx. The pretensions and lies of the ruling class, expressed through politically correct limits on discussions, are mocked by both Trump and Groucho Marx. Again.

Now let Trump's opponents try to discuss TPS, DACA, and immigration and avoid the question of which culture we want more of here.

Do I really have to explain President Trump's strategy in reportedly using a vulgar expression to describe countries from which he believes the United States is taking far too many immigrants? I believe that many readers of this publication already get it, but it is obvious that none of President Trump's haters – Democrats, NeverTrumps formerly regarded as conservative, and those who cling to the notion that civility is to be demanded only of Republicans – has the faintest notion of the way they are being used.

For anyone who has not been watching cable news since yesterday afternoon, the background is provided by the Associated Press (language warning):

In bluntly vulgar language, President Donald Trump questioned Thursday why the U.S. would accept more immigrants from Haiti and "shithole countries" in Africa rather than places like Norway, as he rejected a bipartisan immigration deal, according to people briefed on the extraordinary Oval Office conversation.

Trump's contemptuous description of an entire continent startled lawmakers in the meeting and immediately revived charges that the president is racist. The White House did not deny his remark but issued a statement saying Trump supports immigration policies that welcome "those who can contribute to our society."

The context is important:

Trump's comments came as two senators presented details of a bipartisan compromise that would extend protections against deportation for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants [sic] – and also strengthen border protections, as Trump has insisted.

President Trump has now tweeted that he did not use the word "s‑‑‑‑‑‑‑" but did use "tough language."

The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made - a big setback for DACA!

I wasn't there, and I don't know. But is "s‑‑‑‑‑‑‑" used in private any worse than then-V.P. Biden privately (but near a live microphone) calling Obamacare a "big [f‑‑‑‑‑‑] deal"? Both are vulgarisms stated in private that reached the public.

Scott Adams has explained the first layer of strategy several times in the past, most recently on the "stable genius" outrage. It is still early on the West Coast, where Adams lives, so he has not yet applied his logic to the current kerfuffle. Trump has forced everyone whom he outraged to repeat the words he wants to sink in with the public. The entire chattering class is now repeating that Haiti and some African countries and El Salvador and other TPS-abusers (changing a visa explicitly labeled as "temporary" into a permanent one) are bleep-holes. The best of examples comes from Trump's sworn enemy, Jim Acosta, who repeated the vulgarism in its raw state over and over again:

Trump is thus forcing the country to have a conversation about a topic that political correctness forbids: which countries, and which cultures, we want more of in the United States. In this era, immigrants tend to maintain their old country culture because they have full access to the media from old countries (including TV channels in their native languages), because our ballots are often printed on scores of languages in big cities, and because ethnic enclaves exist where life can be led in the old country culture. Take, for instance, Somalis in Minneapolis:

Life in Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis.

But there is a second layer to Trump's strategy: he is forcing his opponents to argue for a position that is plainly untrue. No one can honestly state that Norway – the country Trump used as an example of non-bleep-hole countries (because he had just had a joint press conference with Norway's P.M. and because Norway is the richest country in the world) – is just as desirable a place to live and a culture to import here as Haiti.

Life in Haiti today.

But of course, some fanatics like Joan Walsh are willing to beclown themselves by refusing to state that Haiti is not as desirable place to live as Norway. Via Mediaite:

Lowry took this opportunity to jump in and push Walsh to answer [in] which country she'd prefer to live – Haiti or Norway. After badgering her a bit on this issue, saying she couldn’t answer the question, Walsh didn't even bother to hide her irritation.

"It's none of your business, actually," she exclaimed.

Here is the entire segment via Grabien, for your viewing pleasure.

I use the words "viewing pleasure" advisedly, because Walsh is playing Margaret Dumont to Trump's Groucho Marx. The pretensions and lies of the ruling class, expressed through politically correct limits on discussions, are mocked by both Trump and Groucho Marx. Again.

Now let Trump's opponents try to discuss TPS, DACA, and immigration and avoid the question of which culture we want more of here.